Talk:Alex Konanykhin

2020 untitled comment

Seems like this page is 100% positive even though there are plenty of controversial aspects of transparentbusiness such as spyware accusations. --Massintel (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Request Edit

Hi, Where is the Wikiexperts.us fraud background story? --Massintel (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

{{request edit}}

Hi! I would like to request some edits in the information box from a neutral party:

• Information provided here shows that political asylum has no correlation to criminal activity. It's granted based on one's justifiable fear for their safety if they were to return to their home country and is guided by immigration law. I'd like to request "criminal status" be changed to "immigration status."

• This Washington Post article shows that he was arrested in his home, by surprise. This article confirms it. Under Criminal Charge it says he fled US immigration authorities, but there's nothing saying that in the Wikipedia article and news coverage shows he was arrested at home. I'd like to request the "Fleeing federal immigration authorities (USA)" be removed, on the basis that it's not true and no such charge was ever made.

• Would like to request adding other businesses he's involved with under the Organizations section:Intuic, OnlineVisibilityExperts.com, Wikiexperts, and BidsFromLawyers.com

King4057 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• The requests, in order:
  • You are definitely correct on asylum != criminal status. I haven't been able to change it to "immigration status" - there doesn't seem to be something for this in the template, nor a free-text header (I might be wrong on this, of course). I did change it to under "Citizenship".
  • I believe it's referring to the "Attempted flight to Canada" portion. Since that arrest was quashed as unlawful, I would assume that the charge would be quashed as well, so I've removed it as you request.
  • What Organizations section? Do you mean putting these in the external links section? I'd have to take a look at the external links policy first. Alternatively, for Intuic, OnlineVisibilityExperts.com, and BidsFromLawyers.com, the links you give could serve as (possibly preliminary) references for his connection with them.
• Allens (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Allens!! In the information box it says "Organization KMGi, Publicity Guaranteed" I probably shouldn't have called it a "section", just another line in the box. King4057 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested changes on infobox
Occupation	CEO of KMGi group
Known for	Entrepreneur, former banker, former Russian oligarch
Spouse	Silvina Moschini

Suggestions for the infobox on this article:

1. Change current parameter occupation into known_for
2. Change current parameter organization into occupation, listing only CEO of KMGi group. For additional listings, maybe better to first update the KMGi article
3. Add parameter spouse Silvina Moschini, with reference: Salatino, Verónica. "Historias de amor más allá de todo (Stories of love beyond all)". Retrieved March 22, 2012.

Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Done I handled Eclipsed's request, which seems reasonable. The changes above seem to conflict with sources we have, so I've left those changes out. If you feel I've misunderstood the request, or have other sources to back up the changes, please feel free to re-enable the Request edit template and let me know. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean which companies to list in the occupation field, or one of other other items? If it's about the companies to list, then the current article does have references for some. I'd still suggest just listing KMGi group for now, then updating the KMGi article with more recent info and references, and then re-look at the listings here. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Request edit on COI link

{{Request edit}}

Hi folks. A request to link to Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, instead of to the WP:COI guideline page:

example of a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]].

to

example of a [[Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia|conflict of interest]].

Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for point this out. I have additional concerns about the last sentence. I seem to remember a policy somewhere about mentioning Wikipedia inside of Wikipedia articles, and that it should be avoided with certain exceptions. I searched but I can't find it. Woz2 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've also seen various mentions. For example Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, and Template:Self-reference. There are probably more pages/discussions about this, too. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:SELF is the one that I lost. How is it now? The tone is a bit sermon-y. Need a way to circle back to the subject. Need a ref to the outcome. Woz2 (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

OK Found it. Pretty good now, I think. Woz2 (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

yeah, perhaps a bit sermon-y still. Mentioning the Bright Line might be premature, but some explanatory text about COI, and neutral coverage of the company code of ethics seems appropriate. I'll do some research and respond a bit later. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Some possible related refs

References

My Spanish is not so good, so the translations of titles and quotes may not be the best. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good. un-tld it when you have a draft. Maybe just reference to two failed attempts at consensus on paid editing and say it's a controversial and ongoing topic of debate in the community? Woz2 (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the code of ethics: the quote used in the citation[2] is "When damaging content is spotted, the changes will be undone by our staff." I understand how this could be interpreted as direct editing. In contrast, my interpretation is to mean that staff will know what damaging content is in regards to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, and they will take appropriate actions based on best practices. Those actions may or may not adhere to the Bright Line concept, but the code of ethics does not mention the Bright Line directly, nor do any P&G mention the Bright Line directly. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It seems to me that "the changes will be undone by our staff" is a pretty explicit declaration of direct editing which is clearly at odds with the established WP:COI guideline. I agree that bright line, paid edit essay, and failed paid edit policy discussion are a separate issue which is why I cut the ref down to just WP:COI Woz2 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both of our personal interpretations are WP:OR, and both interpretations should be viewed with caution, and only used in the article when supported by a combination of primary and non-primary reliable sources. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK I had another go. I'll leave the ball in your court. Watching here... Woz2 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. self-refrencing COI wrapped in a self-refrencing COI. I'm going to take a mini-wikibreak from the topic ;) Maybe other editors could chime in with suggestions and comments. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 12:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

My brain hurts too. Rather than thrashing the live article even more than I have, I'm also going to take a wikibreak on it. Help wanted. Woz2 (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Silvina Moschini draft

Hi folks. A draft biography of Silvina Moschini (Alex Konanykhin's spouse and business partner) is now ready for review, see User talk:Eclipsed/Silvina Moschini for discussion. Much thanks for any comments about if the draft is ready for main article space. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit

The article states in its first sentence:"Konanykhin studied at the Department of Space Research at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology to pursue a career in rocket science" and sources the statement with footnote 12: Constable, “Russian Pair in Custody, Accused of Embezzlement." Constable's article in the WaPo however doesn't mention anything about Konanykhin having studied rocket science. To be fair, the Wiki entry doesn't even state Konanykhin ever studied rocket science but only suggests it through clever wording. But again, nothing of that sort in Constable's Article. Eclipsed or someone from Konanykhin's firm WikiExperts.us, please provide a source for the statement or else delete. And in order to link Konanykhin with rocket science, a phrasing which only expresses intent ("...to pursue a career in rocket science") won't do. Nouly (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hiya. Thanks for the note. Just a standard disclaimer: Neither I, nor anyone else, owns this article. So everyone is welcome to improve the article.

For starters, here are quotes from two of the article references that mention rocket science:

References

Thoughts? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Request: Authority control 43747807

Request: add the authority control metadata template to the bottom of this article:

{{Authority control|VIAF=43747807|LCCN=n/2007/21614}}

example:

Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 21:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

VIAFbot has added the VIAF ID[3], but the request for adding the LCCN ID is still open, thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 07:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Done Shaz0t (talk) 23:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Criminal status

If the article states the person's charges were dropped, and there was no trial, why do we have three separate entries for criminal issues in this page's infobox? I feel like these should be removed, however I wanted to post this issue here first to ensure I am not missing a firm policy for placing these in infoboxes regardless of whether or not the issue is central to a person's story. SoundsOfNature (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As there is no objection to this, I will make the change today. SoundsOfNature (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This guy was accused of stealing of $8 million [4] from his former KGB partners, but the charges were dropped. Why exactly the charges were dropped is a good question.My very best wishes (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

He is an intelligence asset, during his DC trial they flipped the judge in exchange for lifetime information. See this

http://oldtmt.vedomosti.ru/business/article/tmt/233696.html

The CIA became interested in Konanykhin when it received reports that he was involved in efforts to buy citizenship for several dozen Russian nationals in Latin American countries as part of a plan to invest $1 billion in Russia funds.

He was arrested in his Watergate co-op in June 1996 and charged with immigration fraud. The Russian government demanded his extradition on the old embezzlement charges, saying he had stolen $8.1 million and labeling him Russia's most-wanted criminal. --Massintel (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Why is there a "Reference" list here with random articles, that are cited in the citations section, but are simply names of possible references. Would anyone mind if I deleted this? SoundsOfNature (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests

I would like to request a few edits on this page. 1) That WikiExperts was banned was not covered by any third-party RS, and is covered on the WikiExperts page specifically. Can this be moved to the Career in America section only and not the lead, as it is WP:UNDUE and likely added to try and persecute the individual rather than impart an overview of the page. 2) Can the page include some of the following information:

From http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/us-petition-to-brand-russia-a-sponsor-of-terrorism-reaches-target/500583.html

• In 2014 Alex Konanykhin started a petition to have the US government of Russia branded a "state sponsor of terrorism". It achieved about 102,000 signatures, which surpassed the threshold needed for the US government to provide a response.

From http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/ukraine-wants-to-become-the-silicon-valley-of-europe-20140430 and http://www.voanews.com/content/cloudsource-to-ukraine-to-boost-ukrainian-it/1903829.html

• TransparentBusiness and Konanykhin have partnered with the Ukrainian Embassy in the US on the subject of outsourcing IT jobs from abroad to the Ukraine.

From http://www.nearshoreamericas.com/ukraine-assures-ongoing-unrest-impacted-ito-industry/

• Konanykhin has worked with the Ukrainian Embassy specifically on their communications strategy regarding outsourcing IT jobs to the Ukraine.

I am using an edit request not because I am affiliated with WikiExperts in any way, which I am not, but because I feel strongly about the subject of paid editing and want to ensure no personal bias creeps into my contributions. JanuaryRainbow (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Partially done. The mention of non-notable companies in the lede is generally advertorial; the Career in America section is quite small and does not need an overly extensive overview in the lede. 24.114.96.171 (talk) 02:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

(I'm the same user as the IP directly above) - I have noticed that the sourced material I have added is being reverted without explanation. I would love to discuss the rationale for such deletions here, and how the page can be better improved. No horse in this race, just responding to the stale edit request above. 24.114.27.9 (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

To be honest tho, upon inspecting this article there appear to be a lot of primary or other non-reliable-sources being used; can we remove these? 24.114.27.9 (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm placing in-line indicators where I think my concern is relevant. 24.114.27.9 (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Same person again. There appear to be multiple reversions of sourced material on this page by a specific user. It would be best if such reversions were discussed here first, instead of edit-warring. If there are specific concerns with the above user's content then they can be aired, but outright ignoring additional content is wrong. I am reaching out here for the third time to discuss the situation. 24.114.36.100 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Responding to 24.114.36.100 et al. I don't see much of anything being added to the article with the exception of small pieces of promotional content for AK's businesses. Even if promotional content can be sourced, it cannot be added per WP:NOT. What I see instead is a reshuffling the same content and the removal of the wikiexperts banning from the lede. Given that wikiexperts is banned, as well as all its employees, contractors, etc. the persistent removal of this material is bound to raise questions, especially when it is done by a new SPAnon who quotes Wikipolicy.

Let me just draw the SPAnon's attention to the new terms of use. Since June 16, 2014 the ToU require that any paid edit be disclosed. May I ask the SPAnon whether he/she is making paid edits, and if so have they been disclosed?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest no. Do you really see no new content at all? If so fine, but I don't see why you won't compromise whatsoever and why the policy points I've raised are bring summarily ignored. 24.114.79.45 (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring

In reply to most recent reverting edit summary: mentioning events in the lede that have zero reliable sources to support their notability within an individual's life (events that received zero media attention and which are at best incidental to the person's life) is not in line with Wikipedia:LEDE#Biographies_of_living_persons. This section of WP:LEDE mentions "notable material" as what is allowed in the lede, and as something defined by the amount and depth of reliable sources that exist to support it; if there are no reliable sources other than the primary source showing the event (which is the case with what the user wants in the lede), then it is by definition not notable material. Even if kept in the body of the article, placing it in the lede is not in line with the rules. I started in on this project thinking that no one had added the information from the above edit request because Republican backers tend to have pages that could definitely use some clean-up. Here, it appears that someone is specifically keeping any new content out in addition to violating WP:LEDE, though I'm not sure it is for political reasons (WP:AGF and all). The article seems fair enough about the figure, so I don't have any other WP:BLP concerns aside from the lede ... but according to WP:OWN, removing properly cited content solely to preserve a preferred state of the article is wrong. Per Wikipedia:OWN#Single-editor_ownership, please discuss these policy issues here before another bold revert. 24.114.36.100 (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)